--- g...@space.net wrote:
From: Gert Doering
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:57:54PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Yeah, it's quite unfortunate that IPv4 ran out so suddenly,
> barely 15 years after people were told to move towards IPv6.
> ---
>
>
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:57:54PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Yeah, it's quite unfortunate that IPv4 ran out so suddenly,
> barely 15 years after people were told to move towards IPv6.
> ---
>
>
> Especially after IETF made it backwards compatible and
--- g...@space.net wrote:
From: Gert Doering
Yeah, it's quite unfortunate that IPv4 ran out so suddenly,
barely 15 years after people were told to move towards IPv6.
---
Especially after IETF made it backwards compatible and made
it so
>> Yeah, it's quite unfortunate that IPv4 ran out so suddenly, barely 15
years
>> after people were told to move towards IPv6.
sad but true
2017-10-29 10:33 GMT+01:00 Gert Doering :
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 10:32:03AM +0100, WolfSec-Support wrote:
> > The vpn needs
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 10:32:03AM +0100, WolfSec-Support wrote:
> The vpn needs to run on v4
> Its not site 2 site in this case.
>
> As all know it is still rare to get v6 access everywhere
>
> But in general it would be better if an ISP informs the customer BEFORE
> such a change.
>
> To
The vpn needs to run on v4
Its not site 2 site in this case.
As all know it is still rare to get v6 access everywhere
But in general it would be better if an ISP informs the customer BEFORE
such a change.
To implement CGN without making sure the customer gets a notice was simply
the root of the
Roger
Well you are wrong. No ipsec.
With CGN outbound for sure no prob.
But inbound due to CG NAT impossible.
Br
Stephan
Am 28.10.2017 17:32 schrieb "Roger Schmid" :
Well i only suspecting your try to use ipsec, wich is a crazy vpn solution.
I would sugest to evaluate ssl
7 matches
Mail list logo